187Dick wrote on Apr 10^th, 2006 at 10:52pm:


187Dick,

Apology accepted .... Keep on debating !!

Regards  ....

187Dick wrote on Apr 10^th, 2006 at 10:52pm:


Here is a more detailed approach I took to a similar problem:

numbers game

187Dick wrote on Apr 7^th, 2006 at 5:11am:


Care to elaborate on how you can tell the difference in a readout between a high reading due to lying/withholding information, and someone artificially causing those results?

I would throughlly enjoy hearing your explanation.  Examiners say that if you are lying, you will react by breathing heavier, sweating and/or elevated pulse rate.  If the examinee were to produce these on their own, how can you tell the difference?

If you choose to answer, please be specific.

Onesimus,
     While my mathematical approach was rather simplistic, it's still relatively accurate.  If the polygraph worked on 50% of the population, that would be the same as not working.  50% would represent an equal guess right or wrong on yes or no answers.  (The average.)  If the polygraph were only that accurate, I would be siding wih almost everyone esle on this site in regards to the elimination of the polygraph exam as part of a security background check, pre-employment screening and even criminal investigations.  I can tell you that my opinion of the CVSA is exactly that.  It's a piece of junk and does not work.  The polygraph as used by a well trained and ethical examiner is a different story.
     If the polygraph is working 90% of the time,  then it stands to reason that 9 out of 10 people who are administered an exam would be detected by a good examiner.  The failures would be divided between false positives and false negatives, hopefully heavily weighted toward false negatives.  Now if the polygraph is used properly as an investigative tool (which I will admit is not always the case), then in all cases where the other investigative steps failed, (whether to clear or target subjects), the polygraph would be a useful tool in putting the investigation back on the right course.
     Of course the argument to that is that it would also add investigative scrutiny to completed investigations where the subject had passed the investigative process, but had failed the polygraph exam. 
     Another factor that I don't like to stress, but admit is something to consider, is the deterrent factor.  I know that many years ago when I was in college, I was tempted to participate in illegal drug use with many of my friends.  Even if I had the attitude back then that I would quit when I finished college, I also knew that if I wanted a career in law enforcement, I would most likely have to submit to a polygraph examination during the background investigation.  That piece of knowledge kept me away from even minor drug use in college.
     I bring that up because I may have gone down the same slippery slope that so many do when they use illegal drugs.  They don't intend to end up where they do, but so many of them do.  I believe it's the same with most cases of espionage in this country.  Most cases start out small where some entity exploits a weakness in someone who already has the security clearance.  Once that step is taken, the person becomes a slave to that entity with no chance of turning back or saying no.  Hopefully, the possibility of an annual polygraph exam will keep many from taking that first step in the wrong direction.  One thing about deterrence though, and why I don't like to use it as an argument in favor of polygraph exams, it can never be measured.  We don't know if it worked one time or a thousand times.  Other than my own experience, I can not offer a single specific incident where I can say it absolutely had that effect.  But the logic of why I believe it does work is still worth mentioning.

We will talk again.

PS   
Eos,
     Sorry about the false accusation.  It was later explained to me why my original post had disappeared from the ten most recent posts page.  There was no censorship.  I was relieved and humbled.  Please accept my apology.

187Dick wrote on Apr 7^th, 2006 at 5:11am:


Care to elaborate on this point?  Specific numbers like Drew used in his spy example would work.  (hint: If the polygraph were only 50% accurate, you would reduce 0, not 50, percent of the failues of systems in place.  You can't just go from 90% accuracy to 90% of failures removed.)

Gentlemen,

As a soldier on the front lines, I will admit that the polygraph usage is increasing in the Federal sector.  I have admitted as much in many of my past postings.  I have no delusions that the polygraph is going away.

That said, I assure you that prescreening polygraph usage in today's FBI is killing a huge crop of applicants that would have been accepted in the 1970s and 1980s.

Good scientific minds that can think "out of the box" and "connect the dots" are not even applying because they give no validity to any agency that uses the polygraph for employment decisions.

The private sector unemployment is down and competition for top talent is up.  This is the worst case scenario that I have predicted for the last two years.

The FBI is not able to get the people it needs to accomplish its mission and the polygraph is an anchor being dragged on the bottom by a ship that needs to sail at full speed.

187Dick,

Thank you for your civil discussion.  Only in extreme cases have I found this site censored in anyway.

Regards.

187Dick,

In order for screening exam/confirmatory exam combination to be effective, several things have to occur: (1) the screening exam has to be highly sensitive (i.e. will detect espionage, etc. in the case of a national security polygraph exam), (2) the confirmatory exam has to be highly specific (will never lead to an innocent person being left a suspect or accused of espionage, etc. in the case of a follow-up investigation following national security polygraph exam, (3) the screening  exam should  always be paired/confirmed by a confirmatory exam, and (4) the confirmatory exam should be orthogonal (independent) of the screening exam and should be able to be performed in a reasonable and timely manner so as to quickly confirm or deny the screening result. 

Polygraph exams and follow-up investigation if viewed  as such a pair fail on every count, but it is the fourth point I would like to elaborate on for a second.  Far from being independent, the investigation is frequently driven by the polygraph result (e.g., in the Dr. Thomas Butler case (http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Policy;action=display;num=...) how much effort was devoted to looking at other sources for the cause of the missing vials of plague following the polygraph exam results?? --the vials were never recovered and Butler was exonerated on most of the plague charges)  or the (changing) investigative theory will often affect the polygraph exam outcome (e.g., public reporting of the Wen Ho Lee case  (http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Policy;action=display;num=...).  If you believe that you have the background to discuss screening/confirmatory testing as appropriately used in the physical sciences, I would be happy to compare and contrast these and the aforementioned polygraph/further investigation model with you.  

Because  of such problems being left unaddressed  by the (at first blush reasonable and sufficient) pairing of a polygraph result with further investigation , the innocent will often be left hanging in the wind for a long if not indefinite period of time and the guilty may be able to continue in whatever nefarious activity (e.g., Aldrich Ames, Gary Leon Ridgway a.k.a. Green River Killer) with impunity.

187Dick wrote on Apr 7^th, 2006 at 5:51am:


Your post was not censored. When you view the "most recent posts" link, what is displayed is not the last 10 posts to the message board, but rather the last post in each of the 10 most recently updated discussion threads. Mr. Mystery's post automatically replaced yours as the most recent post for this discussion thread.

187Dick wrote on Apr 7^th, 2006 at 5:51am:


187Dick,

As I have no idea of what your talking about ? I can't or won't delete posts unless they are my own. Sorry I am not an administrator. And if you got something to say, then say it straight out. As I do know what I am .... 
If someone is deleting your posts, check elsewhere, as anyone else on this board knows me much better than that. I do use snippets of posts in my posts, but no more.
So enough of this nonsense ... 

Regards

187Dick wrote on Apr 7^th, 2006 at 5:11am:

Eos,
     I noticed the posting you took the quote from disappeared from the last ten posts on the site.  I did not realized this site censored opposing opinions.  It shows you for what you really are.

187Dick wrote on Apr 7^th, 2006 at 5:11am:


It has come full circle now.  We have had a polygrapher blow in here and claim that those who dislike polygraphs are a bunch of child molesting spies.  Here is my all time favorite, it is the 2nd post down.

http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=trashbin;action=display;nu...

Drew,
    Your numbers are a little low compared to my research on valid and reliable studies of single issue tests; however, let's take your numbers and look at them a different way.  If the polygraph works accurately on 90% of the population, then added to other investigative measures, you have just reduced 90% of the failures of systems in place.  Additionally, when it comes to espionage cases, I think a blind system where the subject did not know if he passed or not, or was told he passed when he failed, and then monitored, I think the approach would be very good at screening for weaknesses in the system.
    Any of these issues can be addressed, but unfortunately, the Federal Government management systems are poster examples of broken systems.  There is no effort to rate effectiveness of managment approaches to various problems, which is in itself a major problem.  But that's an arguement for another web site.
    My point is this, any background or criminal investigation can greatly benefit by the use of a polygraph instrument with an ethical and well trained examiner.  It is not a replacement for any part of a background investigation, and needs to be used as a tool to make the investigation more accurate.  I have seen it also help people get into sensitive careers.  (If it were not for the polygraph exam, most people with ex-spouses may not get hired.)  I use that example to illustrate the fact that first hand accounts of incidents or a person's character are far less accurate than polygraph exams, and yet the reliance on them is rarely questioned.
    Until a better system is created, the polygraph exam is here to stay.  People will continue to come to this site who are scheduled for a polygraph exam.  As more states adopt mandatory polygraph exams for child molestors who are released from prison, I'm sure the number of visitors to this site will increase.  Fortunately, the countermeasures you keep advising people to use are not too difficult for most experienced examiners to detect.
    As I have stated before, it's the foolish person who has never taken a polygraph examination, and takes your advice, causing them to fail the polygraph, and gets denied a job because of it that I hope to influence.  (Run on sentence, I know, but I couldn't help it.)  The best way to pass the polygraph examination is to tell the truth.  Hundreds of thousands of people have used that tactic and have been successful.

We will talk again,
Take care.

Polywantahcracker,

Please excuse me if I use my last post to address a separate audience.  I hope I addressed your comment satisfactorily.  I would like to address any National Security officials who might peruse this site from time to time and would like to pick up where I left off:

Quote:


I'd like to look at the aforementioned from the point of view of our fictional next spy.   The picture I have painted is considerably more favorable towards catching our spy than really exists, but even using the previously stated assumptions our spy finds himself sitting quite pretty.  At worst he is lumped into a population of a thousand and his chances of being caught are considerably reduced due to this 1 in a 1000 statistic.  Both he and you (national security official)  know that this population is virtually all composed of false positive polygraph results.  All he has to do is to take the Aldrich Ames approach and deny deny deny.  He is virtually guaranteed to be cleared based on your (National Security official) known and reasonable predisposition in the matter.  What if he wants to make the game a little more difficult and put himself in a bigger haystack and one that won't even be further looked at.  As I have indicated many times, a child can be taught to successfully employ countermeasure techniques.  Our spy is more motivated and, no doubt more knowledgeable than most, so I would suggest to you that he could easily put himself into the bigger grouping of the 9000 true negatives (innocent employees who were found to be non-deceptive) and be the only direct false negative in this case.  I hope it should be clear to you that you are playing a losing game if this is the strategy and game plan you have and currently employ.  If  any in your community would like to contact me directly I would be happy to discuss some ideas regarding how you might do a better job than that which has been done in the past.  Regards....

Polywantahcracker,

You write in part:
Quote:


Precisely.  Control Question Test (CQT) polygraph exams produce a completely unacceptable level of false positive results with specific issue testing and (due to this effect) indirectly a large number of false negative  (i.e., calling a spy non-deceptive in a polygraph exam) results in a national security screening exam.  Let me explain.  For the sake of this conversation let's say an individual polygraph exam were 90 per cent accurate (needless to say it's not and the results of what I am going to explain would be far worse than the dismal situation I will subsequently describe if we were to use realistic accuracy rates).

Let's assume we have reason to believe the FBI has its next Robert Hanssen in its group of  (to the first approximation) 10,000 FBI agents.  If the polygraph exam were 90 per cent accurate we would have a 90 per cent chance of having a deceptive chart for our next spy.  Because it is 10 per cent inaccurate we would also falsely accuse roughly 1000 innocent individuals out of our 10,000-person population.  We would (and do) have the intolerable situation of falsely accusing 1000 innocent employees while at the same time trying to find the proverbial needle in a haystack, i.e., 1 true positive (our spy) to every 1000 false positives.  We would never (and have never) identify our spy based on this nonsense and would throw the routine comradery, trust, and ability to work effectively in the FBI into chaos.  Because of this phenomenon, the FBI (and other similar agencies) will virtually ignore all their positive test results (avoiding the immediate threat of falsely accusing an employee--their are exceptions (false positives that is, e.g., Mark Mallah) but they will never catch a spy with this algorithm.  If this whole exercise appears to you to produce a lack of national security, a serious risk for innocent employees and applicants, and a large waste of precious taxpayer-funded resources, you are as perceptive as your quoted comment would indicate.   Regards...

187Dick,

One thing I have noticed is that a lot of Polygraphers admit there are problems with pre-screening polygraphs however they all take the "you have to break some eggs to make an omlet" stance.

Depending on what side of the table your sitting on I can see how you can feel comfortable maintaning that opinion.  My side of the table is full of hopes, dreams, motivation, aspirations, skills and ability.  Yours has the "box" and the ability to trash everything on my side.

I for one don't understand how any applicant worth their salt wouldn't look at the drug requirements on the agencies website before applying.  I believe the vast majority do and those that don't fall in the guidlines don't apply.  Of course I have no proof of this, it is only my opinion.

This creates an applicant pool where in my opinion the vast majority meet the drug guidlines.  But somehow agencies like the FBI find a 50+% failure rate acceptable.  Frankly I think the questions regarding national security are a formality.  I would love to see the % + or - difference between how many applicants are rejected for national security vs. drug questions.    Maybe that's not a fair question because naturally we are not a country full of spies....but wouldn't that bias make it so, so difficult to find a spy.

Sorry for all the random observations....

-polywantahcracker

187Dick wrote on Apr 6^th, 2006 at 4:36am:

Dear 187Dick,

There are alot of employment agencies, including the FBI, who perform no background investigation.  The prescreening polygraph is the judge, jury, and executioner of many applicants strictly based on polygraph "results" of a prescreening employement exam.  The FBI does not videotape (I assume that all videotape includes audio) or audiotape any of the prescreening exams.  Combine that with no background investigation to confirm polygraph accusations and it spells prejudice, heresay, and good ole-boy-syndrome.

It is just not right.  How clear can I say it?  The applicant should be given the reasonable doubt unless you have something more than polygraph results to destroy a person who wants federal employment.

There are thousands of retired FBI employees and current employees who have served honorably without the use of polygraph screening.  Future behavior cannot be predicited by polygraph screening.  We are leaving huge holes in security due to the belief that polygraph prescreening leads to more "trustworthy" applicants and employees.

The emporer has no clothes.  The system is broken.

Regards.

Poly,
    I support the use of the polygraph for pre-employment screening.  I'll admit that multi-issue tests are less reliable than single issue tests; however, I still believe it's a valuable tool (when used with a very thorough background investigation) to evaluate potential employees.  While I know the system is not perfect, I know of numerous law enforcement applicants (including lateral candidates from outside agencies), who have admitted to some very serious felonies after failing the polygraph.  Interestingly, almost all of them were due to failing specific issue tests after showing deception on multi-issue tests.
    I also know the stress of taking a polygraph exam can make the experience rather traumatic, even for the innocent person; however, hundreds of thousands of people have passed the polygraph exam by doing one simple thing, telling the truth.  The main reason I come to this site is to hopefully infulence innocent people who have to take a polygraph exam to not get caught up believing they have to try some sort of countermeasures to pass.  I have seen far too many people fail the polygraph because they tried to conceal something that would not have even disqualified them from the position, than have failed  because their previous actions did disqualify them.
    Because I have fisthand experience with the polygraph, I don't doubt it's effectiveness when properly used.  

I hope I answered your quesiton,
Take care.

187Dick,

I think even the most extremely anti-poly people would agree there is a higher level or accuracy on the specific issue/criminal investigations. though considerable less then perfect.   I personally do see how it can be an effective interogation tool.

What is your stand/opinion of the screening or pre-employment poly.

Thanks
polywantahcracker

Drew,
    The use of the polygraph in lie detection efforts has been proven successful in hundreds of studies by both the propolygraph community and the antipolygraph community.  Once you admit that there is a higher than average, verifiable accuracy pattern of detecting deception by experienced examiners using polygraph instruments, then you have to admit that there is a level of effectiveness in the use of them.  I have reviewed hundreds of reliability and validity studies, and all of them show a level of accuracy in the ability of examiners to detect deception of subjects being tested with the use of the polygraph.  
    I have not seen a single study that showed the level of effectiveness of single issue polygraph exams to be at or below where the average (50% on yes/no responses) would be.      
    The argument is simple, does attempted deception trigger responses in a subject's body from the sympathetic nervous system, and if so, can those responses be detected by instrumentation?  
    I believe research has proven that statement to be true in most cases.  My concern is the level of accuracy of the system.  (Which I measure in false positive responses).  Because my first hand experience involving the administration of polygraph exams has proven extremely reliable, I am of course in favor of the use of the polygraph to dectect the fear of deception.
    Now you seem to dispute any accuracy of the polygraph testing process.  While I certainly believe you are entitled to your opinion, I would like to know what you base it on.  
    I will look forward to hearing from you.


I'm sure we will talk again,
Take care.

Dr. Richardson,

I agree to all aspects of polygraphy to be quackery (otherwise I wouldn't be here), but I have to respect the polygraphers that believe in being professional, although its highly illogical to support a system that is inherently flawed. Until we get the comprehensive polygraph protection law, we have to live with these folks. As bad as this system may be, we can't change these polygraphers beliefs, just like they won't change ours.  Thanks for the reminder 

Regards  !!

EosJupiter,

You write:
Quote:


I don't believe so...  What goes on with regard to diagnostics by and large is not about good and bad (although there may well be good and bad individuals in practice) polygraphers, ethical and unethical ones, trained and untrained ones, qualified and unqualified ones or federal vs state and local examiners.  This about practicing polygraphers and those who are retired.  Those who are practicing (lie detection) are involved in quackery and those who are retired used to be involved in quackery.  The exception to this simple algorithm would the small (overall) minority of polygraphers in Japan (and elsewhere?) who are involved in the full-time utilization of concealed information testing for diagnostic purposes.  All of the rest of the nonsense should be stopped.

187Dick,

While I whole heartedly concur that much oversite is needed. I see 2 vastly different camps within the polygraph community. First and formost the one where I have the least issue, that is in use by LEO's to do in criminals, and even if I have to defend someone, you can't  beat solid evidence, no matter how hard you try. 

Second, obviously is the hiring and post employment polygraphs. Which is my biggest beef. If you have no control over the process and by many posters on this board, the FED examiners are the biggest offenders of violations in respect to personnal rights and ethics. How do you propose to reign in the unethical practices. Until this happens then as a matter of self protection, knowlege and use of contermeasures is the only course of action. Its unfortunate that this is a cause and effect, but I see very few other options. But the fact is, the few that are bad, undo any of the good that you folks that do try and be professional and ethical. Looking forward to your response.

Regards .....

Eos,
    I'm surprised that you feel those two statements would disqualify me as an expert.  The first statement, that the polygraph does not detect deception, is a simple fact.  The polygraph only detects and records physiological changes in the body.  Anyone who claims anything other than that is definitely not an expert on the use of the polygraph.
    The second statement is in regards to quality control efforts on the use of the polygraph.  From my standpoint, poorly trained or unethical examiners present the biggest threat to the polygraph community because they bring down the reliability rates of the rest of the profession.  They claim to be experts in the field of forensic psychophysiology and yet know very little about why polygraphs work.  They don't know how to set up and run a proper polygraph exams, and yet their results are factored into the validity and reliabilty studies.  I would think that whether you support or oppose the use of the polygraph, you would not want those people administering polygraph exams.
    I agree that the APA does not have sufficient control over the polygraph community enough to effectively eliminate bad examiners.  I am in strong support of state regulations implimented to quality control the profession.  (I don't support federal control because it would then be controlled by DoDPI).  
    

I'm sure we will talk again,
Take care.

187Dick wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2006 at 11:35pm:


187Dick,

In these two statements alone (And I did modify this post, I cut out the superficial verbage). You more than support the reason why this website exists and what it represents. If I had you on the stand in court with this statement in hand, It would be fatal to you as a expert witness in front of a jury or judge (obviously if the evidence would ever be allowed in court), maybe in New Mexico. And proves why polygraphic evidence (testimony and artifacts) are not allowed in court.

But on another level, that last statement is why so many people have to turn to this website and learn. There are no protections what so ever, against unethical examiners. Your APA does set standards and a level of professional ethics. But does not enforce or have the teeth to enforce unethical behavior. The only true way to make sure people are not hurt is to end polygraph exams altogether. I suspect that most of the polygrapher posters on this medium do try and live by the code of ethics, as most are LE investigators or interrogators. But the FEDs either don't wish too or see no valid use in it, as they don't have to answer to anyone. 

quickfix, you are excluded from this statement as your posts and decorum have been most professional. (I am guessing your an Army Warrant Officer (351B or 311B), therefore worthy of exception) as those are the only folks who I have meet as (Army Type)  polygraphers. Or at least a retired one.

Regards ....